> If I’d published a non-fiction book in the last 100 years I’d put $10 right now into a class action to prevent this product from hitting the market.
Authors are a 1 100th of a percent of the population. If we do create new ways for people whose entire life and minds are derivative of millennia of civilization to own facts observed in the world around them the primary funding for and beneficiary of such a change would be an even smaller class of people who collect much more of the sweat of the authors brow than the author even will. The proper response to this is voting any bums who vote for this out of office. If this doesn't work the next step is the guillotine.
> Google will force us to create a new format for information by removing the profitability from the existing one.
The fact that actual scarcity is giving way to plenty in no way suggests that we ought to fight to impose artificial scarcity for the dubious privilege of ensuring that leaches can keep profiting in order to keep a minority of the money filtering down to the people who do the actual work. Perhaps we ought to discover a way for everyone to profitably enjoy the greater bounty instead of glorifying working for a living.
> It’s not like they didn’t tell us they were doing this. Their mission statement was to ‘free the world’s information’. Small wonder they don’t understand privacy. In this case we’re talking about information that’s protected by IP rights. When you free something that belongs to someone it’s called stealing.
Our inherent emotional reaction to real scarcity based on the rivalrous nature of physical goods is a poor foundation to build a case for inventing new rights designed to divvy up the world for the benefit of the rich. I'm sick unto death of hearing proponents of new and inventive varieties of imaginary property describing circumvention of their imaginary rights "stealing". There are no words in keeping with the dignity of this site that I could use to aptly describe my feelings for the authors words. People like him are emphatically the enemies of the people.
EXACTLY! The article is infected with a really vile and evil way of thinking that is almost the equivalent of the "but think of the children" argument for justifying privacy invasion and censorship, but in the field of IP...
> If I’d published a non-fiction book in the last 100 years I’d put $10 right now into a class action to prevent this product from hitting the market.
Authors are a 1 100th of a percent of the population. If we do create new ways for people whose entire life and minds are derivative of millennia of civilization to own facts observed in the world around them the primary funding for and beneficiary of such a change would be an even smaller class of people who collect much more of the sweat of the authors brow than the author even will. The proper response to this is voting any bums who vote for this out of office. If this doesn't work the next step is the guillotine.
> Google will force us to create a new format for information by removing the profitability from the existing one.
The fact that actual scarcity is giving way to plenty in no way suggests that we ought to fight to impose artificial scarcity for the dubious privilege of ensuring that leaches can keep profiting in order to keep a minority of the money filtering down to the people who do the actual work. Perhaps we ought to discover a way for everyone to profitably enjoy the greater bounty instead of glorifying working for a living.
> It’s not like they didn’t tell us they were doing this. Their mission statement was to ‘free the world’s information’. Small wonder they don’t understand privacy. In this case we’re talking about information that’s protected by IP rights. When you free something that belongs to someone it’s called stealing.
Our inherent emotional reaction to real scarcity based on the rivalrous nature of physical goods is a poor foundation to build a case for inventing new rights designed to divvy up the world for the benefit of the rich. I'm sick unto death of hearing proponents of new and inventive varieties of imaginary property describing circumvention of their imaginary rights "stealing". There are no words in keeping with the dignity of this site that I could use to aptly describe my feelings for the authors words. People like him are emphatically the enemies of the people.